Syria: ready to put Russian missile systems on its soil to counterweight US plans (1 Viewer)

[bigboyjames]

Syria: we’ll host Russian missile system

Syria says it’s ready to put a Russian missile system on its soil as a counterweight to U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The offer was made during a meeting between Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad and President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Meanwhile, Moscow is considering a request from Syria for more Russian-made weapons.

It was the first meeting between the two leaders, and President Al-Assad was keen to show Syria’s support for Russia.

"We understand what is behind Russia's position ... We believe this is a response to Georgian provocation. We support Moscow in this and are against any attempts to blacken Russia," Al-Assad said.

Many expected a tit-for-tat response after the U.S. sealed a deal to deploy interceptors in Poland as a part of their missile defence system.

Ahead of the visit, there were reports that Russia might deploy a missile system in Syria, in particular, the Iskander system. It’s something Syria has been requesting for a long time. After Friday’s meeting, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is ready “to consider the offers of the Syrian government in connection to the delivery of new weapons, only for defence purposes”.

Moscow has temporarily suspended cooperation with NATO. It follows NATO’s criticism of Russia’s actions in South Ossetia and threats to shut down the NATO-Russia Council. Lavrov was clear on Russia’s course: “We are not going to slam the door on NATO. NATO could slam this door, though. Everything depends on NATO's priorities: if the priorities are absolutely supportive of Saakashvili's bankrupt regime to the detriment of partnership with Russia, then it is not our fault,” he said.

Meanwhile, the withdrawal of Russian troops from the conflict zone is well under way. There will be at least 500 peacekeepers deployed in the so-called security zone near the border. The rest of the peacekeepers will remain within the de facto borders of South Ossetia. The rest of the troops in the area will return to Russia.

Russia says it’s fully committed to the six principles of the cease-fire, but, according to Lavrov, some countries are resorting to diplomatic tricks.

Both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia’s two separatist regions, have again asked Moscow to recognise their independence.

WW3 here i come baby!
we are in Australia...shit all is gonna happen to us!

anyways, Russia has a perfect point - Bush has started a new cold war all on his lonesome for what? Iran attacking the US? Iran couldn't attack the US if someone gave them the missiles to do manufactured in the US with a Klingon cloaking device.

 

[bigboyjames]

The American People have grown tired of the "war on terror" which has only resulted in higher fuel prices. The Neocons needed a new boogeyman so why not provoke Russia through their vassals in Georgia. Israel must be loving the new missiles in Syria because it gives them another chance to play victim and to demand more money from the US Congress.

 

[sam04u]

A Syrian missile defence is not a counter to the United States, but rather a counter to Israel.

Bush is a dunce.
Why is an idiot like that leading the most powerful country in the world?

Also anyone notice Israel's irrational threats to Lebanon? They basically said "we're going to intentionally attack civilians", how crazy is that?

These people are mad, they're insane, they're bonkers. I wouldn't put them in charge of a high school, let alone the most powerful countries in the world. They're going to get us all killed, I'm convinced.

 

[chicky_pie]

Lets hope Australia stays away from WWIII.

 

[Riet]

Man, this shit is so 20th century. Get a new enemy, fuckheads.

 

[banco55]

They better make sure they have Russians operating the systems given that the Syrians seem to have trouble operating anything more complicated then a dishwasher as we saw in 1982. The Russians had a few choice words to say about the Syrians after that debacle.

"Syria's combat planes are pretty old, too—Soviet Sukhois and MiGs—and the pilots are trained badly, if at all. In 1982, Assad Sr. sent 90 of those planes into dogfights against the Israeli air force. The Israelis shot down all 90, the Syrians shot down zero. While they were at it, the Israeli pilots also managed to rip apart Syria's entire air-defense network."

http://www.slate.com/id/2081578/

 

[ZabZu]

The American People have grown tired of the "war on terror" which has only resulted in higher fuel prices.

I wouldnt say that but im sure most of them feel it went off course with the invasion of Iraq. Afghanistan is heating up again though.

A Syrian missile defence is not a counter to the United States, but rather a counter to Israel.

Why would Syria do that when they're in indirect negotiations with Israel over the Golan Heights? I assume the Syrians dont want their land back anytime soon.

Also anyone notice Israel's irrational threats to Lebanon? They basically said "we're going to intentionally attack civilians", how crazy is that?

I didnt hear that but I did hear Israel say it will attack Lebanon if Hezbollah has complete power over the country.

 

[MissSarajevo]

Ha ha Israel will send its Jet fighter within 1 sec of the missile installation and turn it into dusts just like they bombed Syrian nuclear installation.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Fucking finally someone is sticking it to Bush and his power games. Syria owns.

 

[sam04u]

IWhy would Syria do that when they're in indirect negotiations with Israel over the Golan Heights? I assume the Syrians dont want their land back anytime soon.

A Syrian missile defence system would act as a Russian defence for itself and it's interests in the region, rather than a personal slight against the Israelis. It can potentially protect Israel from penetrating Syria's airspace for an Israeli aerial assault. As America's nuclear arm in region, Israeli nuclear and aerial capability is a threat to Russia's interests in the region. This should not be considered an act of aggression by Russia against Israel, and especially not by Syria against Israel. Any attack on these Syrian defence systems would justify a Russian response to the Polish systems, and that would in turn bring about a global catastrophe, which is something we should be avoiding rather than ushering in. History will tell of an American empire that went around the world occupying countries illegaly, so bare that in mind when you choose sides in this conflict.

For the first time in perhaps your entire sphere of history, you're supporting the wrong side. And that's hard to follow, especially as an egocentric American, Israeli, or Brit. American imperialism will be looked back on negatively, and if that means it will require the dismantling of America's war machine which is stretched from sea to sea, then so be it.

I didnt hear that but I did hear Israel say it will attack Lebanon if Hezbollah has complete power over the country.

Israel has already attacked Lebanon though. So you see I don't see the point they were trying to make. They attacked Hezbollah everywhere they knew Hezbollah were, and even places they knew Hezbollah wasn't. For example they bombed Tripoli several times, even though it's well known there were no Hezbollah there. So to did they bomb the Beirut airport when they knew full well that there was no Hezbollah there either.

So when they make threats like these what else can they be suggesting other than they will be using their high precision weaponry which is designed to reduce collateral damage, and rather be more precise in it's targetting, to inflict maximum civilian casualties. Israel has de-facto asked the weaker side to prevent the more powerful side from gaining influence, pretty much Israel is attempting to bring about a civil war. Unfortunately for Israel the Lebanese people aren't having it. ZabZu, we can volley back and forward but these are undeniable facts. Israel is de facto claiming they're going to target civilians, and as a human being you should know why that is completely wrong. Moreso, as a Jew you should know why it's especially wrong to target uninvolved civilians in these conflicts. Jews have suffered from such tyrannical regimes in the past. There is no reason why you should support such a regime in the present ZabZu.

I'll leave it with you though. You might find it offensive me bringing up some undeniable truths, but don't tell me you don't see the wrong in Israel's threats to the Lebanese people. You're too smart for that. If this is the cost of Jewish sovereignty, the death of innocents, the humiliation and massacre of peoples, then it's not worth it.

Atleast not at the expense of Arabs who did you no harm.

Man, this shit is so 20th century. Get a new enemy, fuckheads.

They did though Riet. They're gunning for the muslims now, but Russia which shares a border with many muslim countries, and has a large muslim population isn't having it. Russia has interests in the middle east, and has a right to defend them. But the United States is looking for every opportunity it can get to damage the Russians. It's the Cold War mentality all over again. The only problem being the American's are too disenfranchised, too uninspired to properly fight a war against the Russkis.

 

[zstar]

Ha ha Israel will send its Jet fighter within 1 sec of the missile installation and turn it into dusts just like they bombed Syrian nuclear installation.

The Anti-missile system wasn't deplyed yet.


Syria just had the older models.

 

[ZabZu]

History will tell of an American empire that went around the world occupying countries illegaly, so bare that in mind when you choose sides in this conflict.

America has made lots of mistakes eg. Vietnam and Iraq, and is responsible for bringing many brutal right-wing dictators to power. However, there was a fear of communism (overexagerated fear) and the USSR was doing the same thing.

The Cold War ended in 1991. The US still too involved in world affairs and has a ridiculous amount of military bases all over the world. However, if we look at Eastern Europe. The region's closer ties with America is not because the US wants to expand its influence everywhere, its because Eastern Europe wants to be close to the US. The region is affraid of Russia (hence why they join NATO) and they want to have living standards similar to Western Europe. They implemented American style economic policies.

For the first time in perhaps your entire sphere of history, you're supporting the wrong side. And that's hard to follow, especially as an egocentric American, Israeli, or Brit. American imperialism will be looked back on negatively, and if that means it will require the dismantling of America's war machine which is stretched from sea to sea, then so be it.

Id much prefer to support the US or the Europeans than the Russians and Chinese. Both Russia and China are dictatorships, they dont have a free press, their human rights records are poor and they support horrible regimes. They support Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Burma, etc.

Israel has also made mistakes in the past but its not the regime your making it out to be. Israelis want peace, yet you support Hezbollah which wont stop fighting until Israel is destroyed.

 

[bigboyjames]

Id much prefer to support the US or the Europeans than the Russians and Chinese. Both Russia and China are dictatorships, they don't have a free press, their human rights records are poor and they support horrible regimes. They support Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Burma, etc.

I was thinking of the same thing but you have fallen for the same trap that the ruling elite wants us to think in this country and any other western country. at the end of the day human rights blah blah blah is directly proportional to the economic stability and prosperity within that country.

as economic growth increases these issues such as human rights are bound to improve. lol, you think human rights were the same today in Europe and the Americas when they were going through industrialization and modernization. thats absurd!

PS: press is never free. it doesn't matter if its government owned or privately owned. at the end of the day even if its privately owned the media will still be controlled to manipulate the masses for either the government agenda or cooperate agenda. free press is an oxymoron my friend in the sense taht your talking about.


Ive mentioned this in another thread about the USA. yes, decades ago it was the home of the brave, land of the free. now, its run by war mongering nazi wanna be fascist dictators. America as a country is not free. is not home of the brave. and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as the word free. it should be compared to nazi Germany. it has already fulfilled the requirements for a fascist dictatorship governmental.

#it invokes a terrifying internal and external enemy.
# Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
# Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
# Set up an internal surveillance system.
# Harass citizens' groups.
# Target key individuals.
# Treat all political dissents as traitors.
# constitution is considered a "piece of paper"

The america your talking about died with JFK.

 

[ZabZu]

at the end of the day human rights blah blah blah is directly proportional to the economic stability and prosperity within that country.

As China is growing and becoming wealthier, yes human rights have improved, but its no where near perfect.

Russia on the other hand has gone backwards. Democracy was improving under Boris Yeltsin but since Putin came to power Russia has become more authoritarian.

you think human rights were the same today in Europe and the Americas when they were going through industrialization and modernization. thats absurd!

Thats right, I wasnt disputing that.

PS: press is never free. it doesn't matter if its government owned or privately owned. at the end of the day even if its privately owned the media will still be controlled to manipulate the masses for either the government agenda or cooperate agenda. free press is an oxymoron my friend in the sense taht your talking about.

The main focus of my comment is that the media is free to criticise the government. Russian journalists who criticise Putin either get harrassed or murdered.

 

[Graney]

I was thinking of the same thing but you have fallen for the same trap that the ruling elite wants us to think in this country and any other western country. at the end of the day human rights blah blah blah is directly proportional to the economic stability and prosperity within that country.

No it's not.

I could rattle off a list of countries that have seen a rise of authoritarianism in line with their economic rise.

You yourself are arguing that the U.S., the world greatest economic power, is also increasingly undemocratic.

There is no reason not to expect and demand developing countries maintain and respect a minimum standard of human rights.

 

[jb_nc]

anything west of china and east of ukraine is dumb as hell. qed

 

[Iron]

No it's not.

I could rattle off a list of countries that have seen a rise of authoritarianism in line with their economic rise.

You yourself are arguing that the U.S., the world greatest economic power, is also increasingly undemocratic.

There is no reason not to expect and demand developing countries maintain and respect a minimum standard of human rights.

Really? I would have agreed that freedoms are contingent on prosperity too. Russia is the classic example - a big country with lots of people but chronic logistical/climate problems. This has historically made authoritarian government necessary. Extracting a workable surplus from the land (to defend the nation) has always required much harsher policies than those in blissful Europe.
Yes?

 

[Graney]

Really? I would have agreed that freedoms are contingent on prosperity too. Russia is the classic example - a big country with lots of people but chronic logistical/climate problems. This has historically made authoritarian government necessary. Extracting a workable surplus from the land (to defend the nation) has always required much harsher policies than those in blissful Europe.
Yes?

You're right, of course.

There is a link between poverty and authoritarianism. But BBJ seemed to be saying, in the context of his rant, that poverty is the sole reason for human rights abuses, and is even an excuse for such. Modern Russia is certainly prosperous enough, it has shown it can, and should run as a democracy. There is no developmental need for Russian human rights abuses and the suppression of freedoms today.

Perhaps authoritarian government is sometimes necessary. But you can maintain a largely authoritarian government while still respecting the most important human rights. The resulting human rights abuses in many modern states is not, and will never be acceptable.

Human rights and prosperity are by no means "directly proportional". There have been too many poor liberal governments and wealthy authoritarian states to say so.

 

[Iron]

Human rights and prosperity are by no means "directly proportional". There have been too many poor liberal governments and wealthy authoritarian states to say so.

I know that there are examples, but i'd very much like to hear them from you.

Also, I think people fool themselves when they say that democracy ensures human rights. Emergency powers? At the drop of a hat, we can lose all our precious freedoms. An earthquake can set it off. What was 9/11, but a global excuse to cloak any shady state actions with "anti-terrorist measures"?

 

[Graney]

I know that there are examples, but i'd very much like to hear them from you.

Off the top of my head, mexico seems pretty free. Mostly.

All the developing world has issues with human rights, but some seem to be disproportionately worse than others.

I'm not entirely sure what human rights, and level of democracy, if any, should be ideally guaranteed. I suppose it depends on the nations individual circumstances and history which rights should be inviolable.

e.g. I can understand china not having free elections, the beauracracy and logistics of changing government would be too overwhelming, but I can't see why any nation should not have a free press, freedom to protest etc...